ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Comparative analysis of thulium fiber and holmium: YAG lasers on retropulsion and stone migration in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: real-world data.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laser lithotripsy, which is widely applied in treating urinary system stones, presents difficulties such as stone migration due to retropulsion, especially in upper ureteral stones. This study aims to compare the stone migration rates of conventional Holmium:YAG (Ho:YAG), pulse modulated Ho:YAG, and Thulium Fiber Laser (TFL) in patients undergoing laser lithotripsy. A retrospective analysis of 455 patients who underwent laser lithotripsy for upper ureteral stones between 01.01.2021 and 01.06.2025 at a tertiary hospital was conducted. The cohort was divided into three groups based on the laser used: conventional 30 W Ho:YAG (Group A), pulse-modulated 65 W Ho:YAG (Group B), and TFL (Group C). Data on stone migration, operation time, laser-on time, and stone-free rates (SFR) were collected and analyzed. Significant differences in stone migration rates were observed, with Group C showing the lowest migration rate (7.8%) compared to Groups A (28.9%) and B (16.8%) (p < 0.001). TFL also resulted in significantly higher SFRs (97.1%) compared to conventional Ho:YAG laser (86.8%) (p = 0.002). Additionally, TFL reduced the need for auxiliary procedures, with only 2.9% of patients requiring flexible ureteroscopy, compared to 12.2% in Group A and 9.7% in Group B (p = 0.032). TFL significantly reduces stone migration and improves stone-free rates compared to conventional and pulse-modulated Ho:YAG lasers. Its clinical and economic benefits, including reduced need for auxiliary procedures and shorter operation times, suggest TFL as a promising alternative for upper ureteral stone treatment. Further large-scale, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41114902What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.